Seven Common Misconceptions About Retirement Planning

Email Facebook Bluesky Twitter LinkedIn

I recently met with a 71-year-old retiree who relies on Social Security for a sizable share of her retirement spending. She’s concerned about recent news that the Social Security retirement trust fund will run out in 2032 – just six years from now. Having read the headlines, she is now worried she’ll lose much of her retirement benefits.

In truth, payroll taxes at that time will be enough to pay 78 percent of scheduled Social Security benefits. That means the worst case is that she’ll face a 22-percent reduction in benefits, something we could accommodate in her financial plan. But it shows how common misconceptions can cause us unnecessary stress and lead to such fear-based decisions as living well below our means.

In my years as a financial planner, I’ve found that concerns tend to cluster around a handful of notions that are – at best – partially wrong. They include:

1. Social Security won’t be there for me.

While Social Security faces a funding shortfall, the program also collects payroll taxes every year and has enormous political support. Even under the most pessimistic projections it can still pay roughly 80 percent of promised benefits (per above) in 2032 without any changes to current law (though the size of this reduction would grow over time if nothing were done). Congress has adjusted Social Security before and will almost certainly do so again.

To close the long-term shortfall, people will end up with somewhat lower benefits and/or higher taxes when Congress does act. So, the changes may impact your retirement planning, but it won’t likely be as extreme as many fear.

2. I don’t need a long-term care plan because I’ll stay in my home.

According to the Center for Retirement Research, about 80 percent of retirees will require some form of long-term care. Staying home may be a reasonable goal for some, but home health aides cost, at the median, about $75,000 per year, and not everyone can remain at home as their care needs intensify. Less than five percent of people over age 50 have private long-term care insurance. Without a plan, many households are forced to draw down their savings and ultimately fall back on Medicaid. Don’t confuse a preference with a plan.

3. Medicaid will cover my long-term care costs.

Related to #2, many people come to me with the belief that they can protect their assets even if they end up needing expensive long-term care.

Medicaid does cover long-term care, but only if you have a low income and your assets are nearly gone. In many states, a single applicant owning more than just $2,000 in eligible assets will not qualify for Medicaid. While you could give assets to family or place them in an irrevocable trust, that leaves you in a precarious financial position. And not all nursing homes accept Medicaid, which severely limits your options.

Bottom line, I generally advise people against getting rid of all their money in order to qualify for Medicaid.

4. Now that I’m retired, long-term investment returns no longer apply to me.

When I describe stocks as a “long-term” investment, retired clients often tell me that they “don’t have a long-term.” While I can’t predict how long anyone will live, I often disagree.

If you retire at 65, your planning horizon is potentially 25 or 30 years. A dollar you won’t spend until age 85 has two decades to lose its value to inflation if left in cash, or to grow if invested in stocks. Abandoning stocks in favor of cash or low-yielding bonds may feel safe but it introduces the real risk of outliving your money. Not only that, you may have other objectives for your investment portfolio beyond providing annual spending in retirement. You may be saving for long-term care or for your heirs; in either case, it may make sense to maintain at least a moderate allocation to stocks.

A well-diversified portfolio that includes stocks remains appropriate for most retirees, even as the allocation shifts more conservative with age.

5. I shouldn’t spend from principal.

Many retirees live unnecessarily frugally because they’re committed to spending only the interest their portfolio generates. The dividend rate of the U.S. stock market has collapsed in the 21st century, and most people can’t count on dividends and income to cover expenses. Your retirement portfolio is not a savings account or an endowment whose principal can’t be touched. Its purpose is to fund your retirement. A sustainable withdrawal rate of 3.5 to 5+ percent allows you to spend thoughtfully without running out of money.

6. My income taxes will be lower in retirement.

Many people assume their tax burden drops when they stop working. That’s not necessarily the case.

If you’ve spent decades saving in a traditional 401(k) or IRA, every dollar you withdraw in retirement is fully taxable as ordinary income. Add Social Security income, pensions, and any part-time work, and some retirees find themselves in a higher bracket than expected. This is one reason Roth conversions – paying taxes now to avoid them later, while earning tax-free growth – deserve serious consideration in the years before or early in retirement, especially while you’re still in a lower bracket.

7. I need to hit a specific number, like $1 million, to retire.

Target savings amounts feel concrete, but they can mislead as often as they help. Whether $1 million is too much or not nearly enough depends almost entirely on how much you spend and what other sources of income you have.

For example, if you live on $50,000 per year and Social Security provides $25,000, your retirement accounts don’t necessarily need to be over $1 million to meet your spending goals. But if you are accustomed to spending $100,000 per year, you would need quite a bit more in your retirement accounts to cover your expenses. Focus on your spending needs and income sources first. The right number follows from that.

The common thread running through all seven of these misconceptions is fear. Fear of running out, losing benefits, or making the wrong move. These fears often nudge people toward overly cautious choices. Getting the fundamentals right matters more than getting everything perfect.

Luke Delorme, CFP® is Director of Financial Planning at Tableaux Wealth in Great Barrington, MA (www.tableauxwealth.com), reachable at luke@tableauxwealth.com. To stay current on the Squared Away blog, join our free email list.

This blog post is for informational and educational purposes only and should not be considered financial advice. Consult a qualified professional for advice specific to your situation.

10 comments
Daniel Ryan IPPFA

All good points, thanks.

Ritch

Leaving aside the question of whether the dysfunctional elected representatives of BOTH political parties can find the courage, commitment, and competence to develop and implement a bipartisan Social Security reform bill that preserves this earned benefit for everyone who has paid into it over the years, it amuses me that “Financial Advisors” and other Financial Pundits who write about a possible 22% (or greater) permanent loss of Social Security income over the remainder of an individual’s retirement often dismiss that catastrophe as “no big deal” and/or “nothing to be seriously concerned about” while knowing that if a retiree’s investment portfolio they were depending on for income to sustain their standard of living in retirement fell by 22% or more and didn’t recover, that decline in the individual’s invested assets would likely have an extremely significant impact on that person’s quality of life for the rest of their retirement.

How does that make any financial sense? That approach and those numbers don’t work very well for me, but perhaps I’m missing something in my thinking on this topic. I’d love to hear what other folks think about whether a potential permanent decrease in lifetime income of 22% or more is something that would concern and impact them as they live out their retirement.

    Susan Morelli

    I share your thoughts, Ritch. A permanent 22% decrease in an income floor, which is a primary income source, for a person in retirement is catastrophic.

    sara

    Well said. Couldn’t agree more. The SS issue is not fear-mongering. It is catastrophic.

    Alan

    How many people could afford to take a 20% reduction in their income if it’s their only source of income?
    How many people have financial planners? Not many, even though they should.

Steve Changaris

Good info Luke…

Edward Bellion

The fear factor is heavily pushed by financial professionals to attract clients and put them into lucrative vehicles. Almost all the YouTube videos talk about mistakes to avoid as do many written articles in magazines and web sites.

John

re #2 “I don’t need a long term care plan.”
When private LTC insurance plans were first offered in the ’90s, they were a GREAT deal for the buyers. Unfortunately, the insurance companies found out that they had underpriced them, so they significantly changed the terms. Read the fine print. Often there’s an annual cap on benefits, so if you have $100,000 in benefits you might only be able to take $25k per year. The median stay in a nursing home is well less than 4 years. No insurer could stay in business if they pay everyone a multiple of their paid premium. For many people it’s better to save and invest the premium and use it when the time comes.

    sara

    Agreed. It is all fine to say “buy a LTC policy” it the existing products are terrible and unaffordable by the exact people who need them most. My mother’s policy has also been a nightmare to work with and she has paid many many thousands over the last 40 years to only have benefits reduced each year. I am so tired of that trope—I wonder how many of the planners actually have policies (or even looked into them) themselves.

      Alan

      My father had a policy that he bought back in the 80’s. He then got dementia and forgot (didn’t pay the premium) and the policy lapsed. It was an early policy so it only covered nursing home care.
      My wife and I have policies and pay $13,000/year. I can afford the premium but we couldn’t afford the care for a significant length of time. 1 policy covers 6 years with a waiting period of 6 months. The other is a lifetime benefit for a reduced amount with 3 month elimination period. I hope I never need to use them. The cost for me is peace of mind.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *. The Center for Retirement Research does not post all comments and may edit some for clarity or brevity. For more details on our reader comments policy, see here.